[등록취소(상)][미간행]
The case holding that even if Patom, one of the designated goods of the registered trademark before the filing of a request for revocation of the trademark registration, the use of the mark can not be seen as the use of the trademark in a form that can be seen the same as the registered trademark “STRM” in light of the common sense of the trading society, even if it was advertised with “STRM” on the “sluri”, one of the designated goods
Article 73(1)3 of the Trademark Act
Snish-gu (Sap Kong) Liber (Patent Attorney Yu-tae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant)
Landscaping (Patent Attorney Ansan-dae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Patent Court Decision 2004Heo2185 Decided July 30, 2004
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
In light of the records, the court below's determination that the registered trademark of this case (registration number No. 289080) composed of "STRM" has no evidence to acknowledge that at least one of the designated goods was properly used in the Republic of Korea by Patom Co., Ltd. within three years prior to the date of the request for cancellation of this case, the registered trademark of this case is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the use of the trademark, the incomplete hearing, or the violation of the rules of evidence, etc. as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
In addition, even if Patom, one of the designated goods of the instant registered trademark prior to the filing date of the instant request for revocation, was advertised with the “Sluri” as “2925.13STRM,” the said mark does not have any circumstance to deem that the Arabic number and English person are continuously composed of the same size and form and that the Arabic number is only an additional part of the English person, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the use of the said mark is a separate mark distinct from the instant registered trademark, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the use of the trademark is a separate mark separate from the instant registered trademark, in light of the common sense of the trade society. Accordingly, the allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing this cannot be accepted.
The Supreme Court precedents cited in the ground of appeal are different from this case, and it is not appropriate to invoke this case.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)